Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Recycling’ Category

The Product Stewardship Institute (PSI) in Boston’s Back Bay is a national non-profit organization with a mission to change the way we pay for waste management and recycling in this country. The concept behind product stewardship is simple—people who benefit from the sale and use of a product should be responsible for the cost of managing that product when the consumer disposes of it. The most commonly discussed form of product stewardship is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), which requires companies to pay some or all of the costs associated with safely managing their products at their end of life. Though many models exist, EPR programs typically involve the creation of an industry-funded stewardship organization that helps businesses recycle the products they produce. Seen by many as a fairer way to pay for recycling, EPR also gives companies an incentive to design and sell products that can easily and cheaply be recycled.

In the past few decades, the EPR approach has caught on all over the world. EPR programs in the United States are typically run at the state level and focus on items that are bulky, dangerous or toxic. Many states have EPR programs for electronic waste, products that contain mercury (e.g., thermostats, auto switches, and fluorescent lights), paint, and batteries. While PSI sees this as a starting point, these are by no means the only products that can benefit from EPR. Five Canadian provinces and the European Union apply EPR to commonplace items like packaging waste. PSI hopes to expand the number of US states that employ EPR and the number of product categories that are covered by EPR programs.

Having worked at PSI as an intern since September of 2012, I have had a chance to become familiar with the Institute’s work nationwide. For a small organization with just 8 full-time employees, the scope of PSI’s work is impressive. Its work includes legislative tracking, advocacy, policy research and evaluation, designing and running pilot projects, and facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogs. PSI is involved with more than 15 product categories, including packaging, paint, electronics, pharmaceuticals, phonebooks, mattresses, and products containing mercury. To give a sense of the scope of PSI’s work, as an intern I am currently assisting in a research project on policy best practices for packaging EPR in Europe and Canada, as well as helping with the design and implementation of a program to increase the number of mercury switches that are recovered from automobiles in Illinois.

I recently had a chance to sit down with Scott Cassel, the founder and CEO of PSI to get a sense of how PSI got started and where the movement is headed. Below are the highlights of our conversation.

Where did the idea for PSI come from and how did PSI get started?

The idea came about in the 1990s when Scott was Director of Waste Policy and Planning at the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and developed the first state plan for household hazardous waste. Because of a lack of funding at the state and municipal level only a small percentage of products were being collected. Scott realized that success at collecting household hazardous waste would break the banks of communities and that a new funding model was needed. At the same time, Scott was president of the North American Hazardous Materials Management Association and learned about successful EPR programs in British Columbia. Scott developed a business plan for an organization to promote EPR in the US and was given roughly three years of seed money by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and space at UMass Lowell. PSI was founded in 2000 and was conceived as an organization that would be a voice for state and local governments on EPR. It has expanded into nearly 100 formal partnerships with companies, organizations (including environmental), universities, and non-US governments. After 4 years at UMass Lowell, PSI moved first to Newbury Street and then to its present location on Stanhope Street in Back Bay.

How has the product stewardship landscape changed since PSI was founded? Has PSI’s role changed since then?

There has been increasing recognition that EPR is not just for toxics and that we need to look at products from a lifecycle perspective. It is easy to see the value of EPR for toxic products and for products such as carpet and mattresses that have high disposal costs for municipalities, but there are actually very few products that cannot fit under the EPR umbrella if you view it from a lifecycle perspective. All products have an impact on the environment, and we need to look broadly at the mining, manufacture, use, transportation, and post-consumer management to really get the full understanding of which products should be viewed as priorities from an environmental impact perspective. With 67 EPR laws in 32 states, the EPR movement has momentum and companies are beginning to see the writing on the wall. Companies are also beginning to realize that regulation can level the playing field and eliminate free rider problems in a way that voluntary initiatives cannot.

One place where voluntary action has been successful has been with retailers, who are realizing that serving as collection points can draw in customers and increase brand loyalty. Staples developed its computer take back program after a successful 6-week pilot project with PSI. They initially charged a $10 fee, but were eventually able to collect and recycle computers for no charge due to an increased market for scrap electronics. This program has proved highly successful, and has been emulated by Best Buy, Office Depot and Office Max.

What do you consider to be PSI’s major accomplishments?

One is the Staples program, which was the first time a retailer became involved in computer take-back.  In 2004, retailers did not want to participate in the national electronics dialogue. Staples stepped forward and worked with PSI to develop the program, which became a well-known success and showed that retailers could take back computers at a low cost. Store employees loved it, and customers showed increased brand loyalty.

A second major accomplishment was a national agreement reached with the paint industry to fund the collection of leftover paint. Over 9 months of dialog, PSI reached an agreement with the industry. After conducting 8 projects over the next two years, the paint industry was convinced to take full responsibility. This showed that it was possible to work with, rather than against, industry on EPR.

EPR has grown tremendously over the past decade, with 67 EPR laws now in place across the country. PSI has thousands of members, including 47 state memberships at the secretary, commissioner or director level. PSI has built a broad-based coalition and it is clear that EPR is not going away. There is a need to take stock and evaluate programs to be sure that they are working to create jobs, save money for governments, increase recycling rates and allocate costs fairly.

How do you see the EPR/product stewardship landscape in America changing in the next few years? Do you anticipate any changes in PSI’s role?

We will see more laws, better laws, and greater justification for the laws. We will gain a better understanding of how EPR influences product design. We will come to better understand the lifecycle impacts of products, allowing us to better target products for EPR programs and necessary voluntary initiatives.  There will also be consolidation, both of collection systems and of stewardship organizations, as is happening in Canada and Europe already.

There is also a possibility of EPR legislation happening at the federal level. At the moment, EPR is still new in the US and is experiencing pushback from industry. This will change once industry comes to accept that EPR is here to stay. Once enough state laws are in place, we could see a tipping point where federal legislation is passed. On the other hand, many stewardship organizations are nervous about the operational challenges of rolling out an EPR program nationally and may resist federal legislation. In addition, a federal program would still need to be implemented at the state level.

We will also see movement toward harmonization of EPR programs at the national and international levels, though this will be a very difficult task. Even within a country or region there are many different models for how EPR programs can be set up and managed, but as we gain experience and understanding of best practices we should be able to begin to move toward more standard models.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Brookline's LEED certified public health building

As part of the Brookline Climate Week, I attended an open house at the town’s LEED Gold certified public health building led by the town’s Health Director Dr. Alan Balsam. The building represents a significant commitment on the part of the Town of Brookline to address sustainability in its public buildings and provide an example of sustainable building practices for the community.

The Brookline Public Health Center was built in 1953. When the building came due for renovation in the early 2000s, Dr. Balsam decided to use the opportunity to make the building a showcase of green building practices by incorporating LEED certification into the retrofit. The town selectmen challenged Dr. Balsam to raise the extra money this would cost. As a result, much of the money was raised privately, including $125,000 from the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (now part of the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center) and $30,000 raised by community group Friends of Brookline.

The renovated building incorporates a number of sustainable building materials, including cork floors, bamboo paneling, low VOC paints, and shelving made of a cellulosic composite material made from leaves. Other important green features include double glazed windows that can be opened to cool the building, use of glass for interior walls to allow light to penetrate the interior of the building, low flow toilets and waterless urinals, and motion-activated low energy lighting. Old building materials such as wood, metal and toilet fixtures were recycled rather than sent to landfill.

The centerpiece of the renovation is the building’s 25 kilowatt solar photovoltaic system, which Dr. Balsam estimates covers approximately 35% of the building’s electricity use and which saved the city $8000 in electricity costs last year. Visitors will soon be able to monitor the system’s energy generation in real time on a monitor in the lobby. The solar panels are raised so as to be very visible from the street, which Dr. Balsam hopes will serve as advertising for the project and encourage others in the community to consider solar energy. The economics of the solar system were more challenging. While the town estimated a 15 year payback for its contribution, Dr. Balsam estimates that the total payback (including external funding) will be on the order of 50 years. However, this system was purchased before the precipitous drop in solar panel prices of the past few years. A project today would likely see a much faster payback.

Dr.Balsam indicated that he sees the LEED project as a way to encourage sustainable behavior both within the municipal government and in the community through leading by example. He also hopes that the project will provide a way to begin talking to people in the community about the links between climate change and public health threats. The project has already created some converts: Dr. Balsam noted that several people in the town’s building department were initially skeptical but were won over to sustainable building practices by the renovation. As a result of this project, the town is now obliged to include sustainability in its feasibility studies for all future renovations of municipal buildings. Through high visibility projects like this, Brookline is clearly putting sustainability and the threat of climate change on the local political agenda. Hopefully this will lead to more such projects in the future, both within Brookline and in other municipalities in the state.

Read Full Post »

Have you ever wondered whether or not all this recycling is doing any good? We hear plenty of bad news—overflowing landfills, rising energy consumption, islands of garbage floating in the ocean—but until recently it has been hard to figure out just how much impact our own individual behavior was having.  Boston-area company Greenbean Recycle aims to change that by installing high-tech “reverse vending machines” at university campuses and eventually other public areas around the city. Aimed at the Facebook and Twitter crowd, these machines provide recyclers with instantaneous feedback on how much they are recycling and on how much energy they have saved in the process. Users simply sign in and deposit their bottles; their recycling totals are tracked online. According to the company’s website, the company’s machines at MIT and Tufts had recycled 30,058 containers and saved 5313 kilowatt hours of energy as of February 9, 2012. Bottle deposit money can be deposited to a Paypal account, added to a student spending card, or donated to a charity of the user’s choice.

The instant feedback provided by this system gives an incentive to keep recycling in much the same way that the desire to get a high score in Tetris keeps players coming back. This is an example of the phenomenon of gamification, or adding video game-like incentives to encourage people to participate in socially desirable activities. Greenbean offers recycling competitions (the America Recycles for Thanksgiving challenge took 2636 containers out of the waste stream), and CEO Shanker Sahai envisions eventually giving away prizes provided by sponsors, such as Red Sox tickets, to encourage even more recycling.

Anyone who has had (or known someone who has had) a video game obsession knows how easy it is to get hooked on simple, repetitive tasks for which rewards are given. Gamification provides a wealth of opportunities to encourage people to participate in beneficial activities by reframing them as competitive games rather than chores. In the future it would be interesting to see more experimentation in this area, such as testing whether or not intermittent rewards (e.g. a small chance to win a random prize each time a bottle is inserted into the machine), would increase use.

We applaud Greenbean for its innovative program, and hope to see more of its machines around the city in the near future.

Read Full Post »

It’s odd that a city as “green” as Boston has such a low recycling rate. The Sparking Boston’s Climate Revolution report states that Bostonians recycle approximately one-seventh of the trash they produce, but that more than one-half of their trash could be recycled.  Perhaps we should advocate for extended producer responsibility (EPR) or product stewardship laws as a higher order strategy to divert more trash from landfills. EPR laws shift some responsibility for recycling, disposal, and reuse of consumer products from the government to product manufacturers.  A major objective of these laws is to motivate manufacturers to develop products that can be recycled and disposed of at a lower monetary and environmental cost.

The Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), a national advocacy organization for the product stewardship movement, calls Boston home.  The institute was founded in 2000 by Scott Cassell, a former Director of Waste Policy and Planning for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.  PSI’s core principles of product stewardship include: sharing responsibility for product impacts among producers, consumers, and governments; internalizing products’ entire costs; creating incentives for manufactures to develop cleaner products; allowing responsible parties flexibility to efficiently address their products’ impacts; and defining clear roles for consumers, industry and governments to support product stewardship.

The Product Stewardship Institute promotes legislation, undertakes research, and educates the public on product stewardship.  For example, last year, California enacted AB 1343, a bill that will create a paint product stewardship program requiring left over consumer paint to be managed by manufacturers.  AB 1343 mirrors a 2008 Oregon bill that was created with the help of PSI, which worked to convene paint manufactures, retailers, recyclers, and government officials to develop the bill together.  PSI is also a source for product stewardship publications and has submitted comments and testimony on various product stewardship bills.

Several countries have adopted national product stewardship laws. Canada’s 2009 Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility created national standards and goals for product stewardship. The first phase of the action plan requires provinces to develop EPR management programs for several products by 2015, including packaging, e-waste, and hazardous household waste.  Phase 2 requires EPR management programs to be in place by 2017 for construction materials, demolition materials, furniture, textiles and carpet, and appliances.

The EU product stewardship legislation is modeled after national laws in Germany, Belgium, France, and Austria. It covers product packaging, end-of-life vehicles, e-waste, and batteries.

Although the U.S. does not have national EPR laws, over 30 states, including Massachusetts, have legislation which mandates that the end-of-life of certain products is handled by producers and businesses (see map below).  Massachusetts has a single extended producer responsibility law that restricts the sale of mercury-added products and mandates that auto manufactures institute a collection program for mercury-added auto switches.

In 2010, Maine became a national leader with its Product Stewardship Bill.  Before this bill, Maine had extended producer responsibility laws for mercury-containing auto switches, e-waste, certain batteries, and mercury bulbs and thermostats.  This new bill calls on Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection to review existing product stewardship programs for improvements and recommend new product stewardship programs to the state legislature.  Last month, the DEP submitted its first report to the legislature and recommended that product stewardship programs be developed for paint, unused pharmaceuticals, and used medical sharps.  As states increasingly create their own product stewardship laws, the importance and value in creating national laws will grow.

Read Full Post »